posted at 11:57 am on August 29, 2006 by Allahpundit

Unfortunate side effect of the Adnan Hajj diet: your chin is sharpened to the point where it can cut glass.

Update: Just got an e-mail from someone who claims to be in the publishing industry:

Be careful shouting “Wolf!” because Katie Couric’s true picture is likely the thin one — the fattening on the other is likely an anamorphic (uniform single direction) expansion ordinary page layout programs do to fill the picture frame on a page. It’s the sign of an amateur, not evil.

Any professional photo editors willing to weigh in on this one? I find it hard to believe that the space between her arms and waist could change that radically without the rest of the image changing too. Check out the CBS graphic behind her; it does appear to be ever so slightly wider in the photo of fat Katie, but, er, not as wide as she is.

Update: A reader e-mails:

The spaces between her arms and waist do in fact change — but in the wrong direction — that is to say, the amount of space would remain proportional whichever shot was the original. If the slimmer shot was modified to make her appear wider, then the gap between her arm and waist would also widen, but the image shows less space. The reverse is also true — if the image were compressed to make her appear slimmer, then the gaps showing the backdrop would become narrower — but the exact opposite is what we see. As a reference point I offer the wrinkles in the bottom of the blue portion of the backdrop.

Further, the lapels of her outer garment remain the same distance apart below the neckline of her scoopneck, but are closer together above that point. Also noteworthy is the distance between the pinstripes, which doesn’t change, one image to the next.

Update: Another reader:

I’m a CG artist who uses Photoshop daily. At first glance it’s not obvious if the thin or fat Katie is the original version, but it can be stated definitively that, whichever one is distorted, it was done so deliberately, not via any sort of automated stretching or contracting as suggested by your other e-mailer. Specifically, the hands and envelope in both photos are identical. They can be overlaid atop oen another in Photoshop perfectly. If the entire image had been scaled in any way, this would not be possible, as the hands would have distorted along with the rest of the image. The only way to achieve the observed effect would be to deliberately cut-and-paste the hands from the original image into the modified one. This is indisputable evidence of intentional photo manipulation…

As for which image is the original, it is most likely the “fat” version. Notice how much more detail is apparent in the pinstripes of the suit? Much of this detail is missing in the “thin” version, which is much darker throughout much of the suit, particularly around the belly, which has been pushed to black. This means that, while it is possible to adjust the pinstriped “fat” belly to produce the darker, higher contrast “thin” one, it would not be possible to easily adjust the blacked-out belly of the “thin” version to produce the less punchy but more detailed “fat” one, because the data is no longer present. To produce the “fat” version from the “thin” one would involve painstakingly hand-redrawing the pinstripes, doing it quite well, and having no discernible reason to do so.

Update: I’d have done this myself, but I don’t have access to Photoshop at the moment. Reader Patty Ann overlaid fat on top of skinny to see what shook out. Here’s what she found:

In the attached image, the example on the left is where I took the *fat* katie image, converted it to grayscale, changed the opacity to 69%, then copied it on top of the *skinny* katie image. Then I moved the sides of the grayscale image in (ignoring the aspect ratio) until the bottoms of her elbows and her eyes and chin matched their positions in the color image. I then highlighted the *ghosting* (overlap still showing from the grayscale image) and painted the overlap red. The ghosting shows on the left image, the right image just makes it pop out so you can see it easier.

So, the answer is if anamorphic (uniform single direction) expansion did occur (I would say yes) the ghosting still needs to be explained.

I would never claim to be a professional expert, but this image has had a few pounds removed in the upper arms, waist and hips (gee, just where I’d like mine removed).

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

In regards to the update, it does look like the main difference between the two images is a simple scaling of the image in one axis. Note the blue lights and their relationship to the elbows. That section has not changed.

But as you note, the space between the arms and the torso should shrink in the “skinny Katie”– not grow. Back to the drawing board, publishing guy.

I find it hard to believe this could be done with Photoshopping in the way I’ve come to think of it–scrubbing individual areas and duplicating background and yada yada yada. Could anybody really do that to her *face* and not have it be screamingly, smoke-cloned obvious?

If you’re seeing what I think you’re seeing it’s not black bikini brief but the shadow of the envelope she’s holding. The envelope most likely contains a letter from Dan Rather strongly urging her to continue with the Memogate story. I bet it’s signed, “Courage!”

Not only does the skinny Katie’s chin look irregular, but her inner left arm is straighter, and the bottom of the jacket has been smoothed away, along with her hips. Of course the entire skinny image is darker, so the lines on the suit do not show up as well on my monitor, making it harder to count pinstripes.

It’s good, but not great. For great they would have had to have been a little more subtle. They overdid it. They made such a large change that it was obvious to viewers. The whole point of making this sort of touch-up is to make it believable. They missed.

Here’s something not yet discussed but important none the less. Katie and her handlers are always trying to get women to be authentic and resist the male-dominated culture, which allegedly judges women only by their looks. And yet, here we have Katie polishing up her image to conform to the expectations of the slavemasters. Shocked, I am, just shocked at this! moosefeathers.typepad.com

Absolutely a photoshop:
1) Note the bumps in the suit at the top of both shoulder seams in the fat photo…nowhere to be seen in the skinny shot.
2) In the fat photo, the outfit appears to be a two-piece; but, the skinny photo looks more like a one-piece (the little bump near her left hip where the top piece ends is gone in the skinny pic.)
3) The ripples of fabric on her right sleeve that are apparent in the fat photo do not exist in the skinny one. (Does Photoshop come with an ironing board?)

One of the benefits of afternoon shift work is that I haven’t seen the ‘evening news’ in years. I don’t miss it a bit, though I do appreciate KCouric not stinking up the Today program anymore. Meredith Viera? She’s okay, but the opportunity to bring in a new face, a new person that could bring some vitality and youthfulness to the show was missed.
Viera replacing Couric is like William Demarest taking over for William Frawley on “My Three Sons”. (I just wanted to hear a collective “Huh?” from those younger than 40.)

The envelope most likely contains a letter from Dan Rather strongly urging her to continue with the Memogate story.

That reminds me, did anyone catch the SNL episode where “Dan Rather” showed up at Weekend Update to wish Katie good luck?

(paraphrasing, off the top of my head…. and picture in an excellent Dan Rather voice)

When the producers told me that Katie Couric was going to take my place, I laughed for 5 minutes. Then he said, I’m serious. And I laughed for another 5 minutes. But when he finally convinced me that he was serious, I…. (can’t remember what he says here, some sort of expression of approval, including “she’s tough as nails”).

Then he mocks a lot of her previous work, while acting as if it’s hard hitting stuff… things like

‘I hope she can bring to CBS Evening News, the hard hitting journalistic skills she showed in her recent expose ‘How to party down at your prom for pennies’

a few other similar jokes then ending with something like:

‘I hope she has Rascal Flatts on for the 60 Minutes Summer Concert Series’…

I wish I could find that video, but doesn’t look like it’s out there anywhere… classic stuff though

1) Note the bumps in the suit at the top of both shoulder seams in the fat photo…nowhere to be seen in the skinny shot.
2) In the fat photo, the outfit appears to be a two-piece; but, the skinny photo looks more like a one-piece (the little bump near her left hip where the top piece ends is gone in the skinny pic.)
3) The ripples of fabric on her right sleeve that are apparent in the fat photo do not exist in the skinny one. (Does Photoshop come with an ironing board?)

You nailed it… By the way, has anyone else saved and zoomed on the image? Do so while looking for the line where the jacket meets the skirt. Zoom it in, and you can clearly see the line on the fat Katie, but it’s CLEARLY been shopped away in the skinny Katie… there is nothing left of it

oh by the way, if no one has pointed this out yet… the chin issue is caused by a shadow on her neck, blending in to her chin when skinny Katie was created… it’s not part of her chin, but the shopping screwed up and makes it blend together. save and zoom, and look at fat Katie and see.

MSM-Trim! The new wonder diet! Apply directly to the truth! Apply directly to the truth! Watch those troublesome facts melt away! Also available in a halah version for those with Religion of Peace sensitivities.

RightWinged,
The chin settles it too. By the way, I loved your photoshop of the Lebanese real estate mogul. You need a spew warning though…nearly doused my notebook with tea. (I know, I know, but it’s only Tuesday afternoon…2 for 1 Guinness on Wednesday nights at Kelly’s)

I’ve seen people on TV take a picture of a model laying down and extend her legs to make them longer (cause we know guys love that!), skimming off “fat” from her legs and arms, etc. It’s actually amazing what they can do with a computer, I just wish it was that easy in real life.

This is symbolic of what we will get with Katie Curic as anchor of CBS News – lies, depecptions and extreme partisanship! To prove that point even more, Walter Cronkite will introduce her to the CBS audience, and he is an extreme left wing liberal of the first degree.

On 9/11, within 45 minutes of the attacks, Katie was on the Today Show blaming Bush’s Israeli policies for the attacks; and we can expect her to keep up the partisan attacks until the cows come home and this country implodes from destructive, anti-American liberal filth!

chsw, the promotion of this woman is disgusting and why not point out just how dishonest the whole process is. This woman will only further the leftward bias of CBS and it is unfortunate that CBS didn’t learn from the lesson of Dan Rather and try to find someone with a lot less liberal baggage and a lot more respect for the truth.

chsw, who couldn’t care if a news anchor looks like Irving R. Levine, so long as he/she/it delivered actual news in an impartial manner.

You’re missing the point chsw.. Who here said they care about what she looks like either? The point is that they’re going out of their way to make photoshop her to make her look skinny. We aren’t here saying “gotcha fatty”, we’re saying “gotcha lying media!”… Get it?

Photo editors have been doing this kind of stuff ever since they started using photos in publicity stunts. Nothing new here except that it’s easier to spot these days. I think that’s probably because they are using lower standards to hire their graphics artists these days.
Some good will come from this though: The news organizations will now have to start hiring true Photoshop professionals to work for them. Good employment opportunities. (smile)

chsw, love the point. This chain is bizarre, beyond the valid and timely point (RW) about more media image manipulation.

She’s a nitwit and a leftist, utterly unqualified to render opinion on anything beyond how to make lunches for the kids when you have to be up for work at 3am, and maybe “what not to wear.” Believe it or not, she will actually move CBS further to the left. I know!
Having said that, clearly that is not undergarment showing through, it is shadow from overhead lighting, rookies.